DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
This rejection is withdrawn due to the amendments made to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cramer (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0230443).
Regarding claim 1, Cramer discloses a vehicle comprising:
A vehicle body; a plurality of wheels;
an active chassis (abstract, active chassis from applicants specification page 1 is variable suspension characteristics), wherein each wheel of the plurality of wheels is linked to the vehicle body by a wheel suspension (x138), and a vibration/damping device with a vertical dynamics system configured to be controlled by a chassis control unit (¶213) that is configured to:, adjust roll stiffness of the vehicle adjust an articulation capability of the vehicle (¶213 discloses adjusting the spring rates) wherein the roll stiffness and the articulation capability are adjusted in opposite directions,
Note: Roll stiffness is generally understood as the ability of the wheels to move together and articulation is understood as the ability for the wheels to move independently. Increasing stiffness leads to the decrease of articulation inherently.
and receive user input of the roll stiffness and the articulation capability (fig. d16), during off-road driving (one can use this system on or off the road), wherein the roll stiffness is configured by a slider to a minimum value, a medium value, or a maximum value (¶163 ¶180 discloses the adjustment through ride height which as shown in fig. d 16 has at least three settings.).
Regarding claim 10 which depends from claim 1, Cramer discloses wherein slider is configured to be continuously changed by the user (shown in fig. 16d).
Regarding claim 2 which depends from claim 1, Cramer discloses wherein for maximum traction capability with minimum ground clearance, the roll stiffness is set to the minimum value (fig. d16 shows a minimum ride height can be set).
Regarding claim 11 which depends from claim 2, Cramer discloses wherein for maximum ground clearance with reduced traction capability, the roll stiffness is set to the maximum value (fig. d16 shows the settings).
Regarding claim 12 which depends from claim 2, Cramer discloses wherein for a medium traction capability and for a medium ground clearance, the roll stiffness is set to the medium value (fig. d16 shows the settings).
Regarding claim 3 which depends from claim 1, Cramer discloses wherein for maximum ground clearance with reduced traction capability, the roll stiffness is set to the maximum value (fig. d16 shows a max ride height can be set).
Regarding claim 13 which depends from claim 3, Cramer discloses wherein for a medium traction capability and for a medium ground clearance, the roll stiffness is set to the medium value (fig. d16 shows the settings).
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, Cramer discloses wherein for a medium traction capability and for a medium ground clearance, the roll stiffness is set to the medium value (fig. d16 shows a medium ride height can be set).
Regarding claim 5, Cramer discloses a vehicle comprising a vehicle body; a plurality of wheels; an active chassis wherein each wheel of the plurality of wheels is linked to the vehicle body by a wheel suspension a vibration/damping device with a vertical dynamics system configured to be controlled by a chassis control unit, wherein the vertical dynamics system is configured to compress according to a compression characteristic curve which increases progressively as spring stiffness increases (the air springs disclosed in ¶213 would compress progressively), the chassis control unit is further configured to receive user input of the compression characteristic curve (fig. d16), when driving off-road wherein the compression characteristic curve is configured by a slider to a maximum of compression travel, a medium limitation of the compression travel, or a maximum limitation of the compression travel (the limitations of this claim have been addressed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6 which depends from claim 5, Cramer discloses wherein for maximum traction capability, the slider is set to the maximum compression travel (fig. d16 shows a maximum ride height can be set).
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 6, Cramer discloses wherein for maximum ground clearance, the slider is set to the maximum compression travel (fig. d16 shows the settings).
Regarding claim 15 which depends from claim 6, Cramer discloses wherein for a medium traction capability and for a medium ground clearance, the slider is set to the medium limitation of the compression travel (fig. d16 shows the settings).
Regarding claim 7 which depends from claim 5, Cramer discloses wherein for maximum ground clearance, the slider is set to the maximum limitation of the compression travel (fig. d16 shows a maximum ride height can be set).
Regarding claim 16 which depends from claim 7, Cramer discloses wherein for a medium traction capability and for a medium ground clearance, the slider is set to the a medium limitation of the compression travel (fig. d16 shows the settings).
Regarding claim 8 which depends from claim 5, Cramer discloses wherein for a medium traction capability and for a medium ground clearance, the slider is set to a medium limitation of the compression travel (fig. d16 shows a medium ride height can be set).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0230443) as applied to claims 5-8 above, further in view of Chambers (U.S. Pat. No. 10,399,403).
Regarding claim 9, 17-19 which depends from claim 5-8 respectively, Cramer discloses and the chassis control unit is further configured to control the vertical dynamics system with actuating forces with the aid of which the available compression travel can be reduced from the maximum compression travel to the reduced limit value so that the rubber-elastic stop buffer is not used or is only partially used (¶213 discloses a system that can dynamically adjust the travel and so address this broad limitation).
Cramer does not disclose wherein the vertical dynamics system further comprises a rubber-elastic stop buffer that is configured to act as an additional spring at a correspondingly large compression and limits the compression travel to a maximum value, and a compression characteristic curve which increases progressively towards the maximum compression travel.
Chambers, which deals in suspension systems, teaches wherein the vertical dynamics system further comprises a rubber-elastic stop buffer that is configured to act as an additional spring at a correspondingly large compression and limits the compression travel to a maximum value, and a compression characteristic curve which increases progressively towards the maximum compression travel (col. 1, lines 13-27 discloses a suspension system with rubber stops. This being an elastic member would inherently provide a compression curve).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Cramer with the rubber stops of Chambers because this prevents metal contact (col. 1, lines 20-22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 9 and 10 for the amendments made to the claims, which have been addressed above. In particular how Fig. 3a, 4a, and 5a of the instant application shows how there is a slider with max ground clearance on one side and max traction on the other which tells the system to either increase stiffness or articulation while adjusting the ride height. The Cramer system instead displays a ride height slider which allows for adjustment of the stiffness and articulation due to the disclosure stating how these variables are adjusted together.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GONZALO LAGUARDA whose telephone number is (571)272-5920. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 M-Th Alt. F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GONZALO LAGUARDA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747 email: gonzalo.laguarda@uspto.gov
/GONZALO LAGUARDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights